GENERAL DISCUSSIONS

Loved Firefly, but Serenity *sucked* (SPOLIERS)

POSTED BY: JUSL89
UPDATED: Friday, December 16, 2005 12:26
SHORT URL:
VIEWED: 15702
PAGE 2 of 3

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 6:18 PM

TRACY


Okay, for the nth. time - all 9 actors are signed for all three movies. Having said this:

Scene - outside of the Red Carpet Premiere Party at 'Versal Studios Hollywood.

Me: (whispering in ear) "I cried. Twice."
Alan Tudyk : (holding my hand from the greeting still) )"I'm so sorry!"
Me: "I felt staked through the chest."
AT: "Don't worry, everything will be fine. I promise you."

Later - Same place.

Me: "I kinda hate you for killing Wash."
Joss Whedon: "Well, you know... sorry."
Me: "But I do have some theories as to how you can bring him back."
JW: "Oh, you're not alone! I have like a million of them. I promise you, he'll be back. Everything's OK."

Trust Joss - he knows what he's doing. Yes, he's killed Wash. Yes, flashbacks would be the cheapest and easiest way to bring him back. I don't think that will be the case.

Wash and Book will be back.

In Joss I Trust.




"Can I make a suggestion that doesn't involve violence? Or is this the wrong crowd for that?" (Wash)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 7:14 PM

DUNDEE


My oppinion can be simply stated. Serenity as a continuation of the firefly universe SUCKED
all the points memtioned with the first post are totaly correct.

that being said as a stand alone movie serenity was the best movie ive seen in years

Try to understand the possition joss was put in , he had to make a moive that sold to people who had never seen firefly and i think he did a good job at that, whenever a writer gets put into this possition someone has to loose. better it to be the fans and sell the movie then have a total flop and a few happy people AND be 40 mill in the hole.

its a simple numbers game. just like the browncoats WE LOOSE superior numbers (thanks for the re-enactment joss)

and as for wash/book there are 9 characters in this universe. 3 die in the moive and only one is resurected (re built) at the end. the other two will be back somehow or in some way i dont believe joss could warp this universe that much and sleep at night

thats assuming there is another....
and on that note GO SEE SERENITY AGAIN RIGHT NOW
we havnt even broken even yet !

thanks Joss!




"When you cant run to see serenity you crawl to see serenity, and when you cant do that... well you know the rest"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 7:39 PM

RODASH


Quote:

Originally posted by Tracy:
Okay, for the nth. time - all 9 actors are signed for all three movies. Having said this:


Trust Joss - he knows what he's doing. Yes, he's killed Wash. Yes, flashbacks would be the cheapest and easiest way to bring him back. I don't think that will be the case.

Wash and Book will be back.



Thanks for this post Tracy, I hope it's true!!

P.S. How were you lucky enough to get into the 'versil premiere?




NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 8:59 PM

TRACY


Paid for the party the Browncoats had organized at Hard Rock, which was subsequently cancelled cos they didn't get the minimum number of people requested. 'Versal found out about it, said, "You know what? You guys come to our party!"

We were very well-behaved, followed the rules... unlike some other people that exploited their every 'Versal connection, called in every favor, and then treated it like a Gorram convention! Don't get me started...

*goes back to thinking about Alan almost dragging her to the bathroom - he has a hard time letting go of my hand, as it's happened before*

"Can I make a suggestion that doesn't involve violence? Or is this the wrong crowd for that?" (Wash)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 9:05 PM

MUFFINMANISTHESKIES


5. I don't know why Joss doesn't kill villains, maybe he wants to reuse them or prove that heros are different. If someone has theories, post them.

Joss has said he doesnt think that a hero kills people. He talks like this when he discusses the state of comics. He has said he would get rid of character like Punisher and the Dark Horse Batman. He believes that a hero, being a virtuos character, cant kill someone

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 9:18 PM

HKCAVALIER


Stake, I really kinda hate these discussions. I'm not trying to convince anyone about the movie. I'm sharing my experiences with the hope that they resonate with others here. You and others coming here to tell me that I'm "wrong" and "defend" the movie is really just an annoyance. I very purposefully refrain from posting my negative feelings about the movie in threads specifically praising the BDM. I would just be a jerk if I did that, wouldn't I? Folks like you coming to this thread to "refute" my gorram feelings and perceptions is getting pretty old. I'm having a hard time finding it anything but rude. You loved the movie. I'm sincerely happy you did. I wish to hell I did. I could not. For the reasons I've been articulating. The failure of Serenity is still pretty painful to me personally and I need to talk to people who understand what it means.
Quote:

Originally posted by StakeTheLurk:
First off, you seem to be stating opinion as fact, which tends to get folks with differing opinions riled up. Might want to look to that; these discussions can get pretty ugly when tempers flare.

Stake, bubbala, we all do this. You did the exact same thing in this very post:
Quote:

I would also argue that such a technique actually brings us closer to the characters rather than jarring them out of a story. In television, you know that the cast is going to be back next week--it creates a sense of distance between you and the characters. [Not me.] Captain Picard may feel his life is in danger, but we all know he’ll be back on the Enterprise next week, so our emotions do not match those of the characters. [Nope.] Something similar happens in formula action movies; all the heroes usually survive while maybe a few sympathetic second tier characters get it. With Serenity, the Browncoats go in with the emotional distance of the TV show [I didn't.] and the regular audiences go in with the emotional distance of formula action.
See how easy it is? That's your experience, not a fact. Personally, I don't have a problem with it; its called speaking with authority; we all have the right to act as if what we think is true actually is true.

Obviously, I don't experience t.v. or movies the way you do. I've watched every episode of Firefly umpteen times and I have exactly the same emotional engagement today as I did three years ago when they were first aired. When Kaylee gets shot, I can't help feeling frightened, not because I don't know that Kaylee's gonna pull through in the second half of the episode, but because good art never gets too far from its reference point: real life. People die of gunshot wounds every day. If you're gut-shot, you don't have long to live without treatment. Firefly, for me, creates the illusion that Kaylee is/was/will be a real person. That real person's life is in grave danger when Dobson shoots her. For me, the best art has the conviction of a documentary. For me, Serenity the movie didn't have it--and didn't have it in spades!

As for the meta-narrative, I was reacting to the many, many posts I've read on this site where people said that yes, indeed they did immediately think of Joss and what he was capable of when Wash died. And they loved it. What I said was "even the people who defend Joss's decision were taken out of the story by that event!" I was refering to the vast majority of posts I'd read. So, when you come along and say, "Well it didn't do that to me!" I'm not even talking about you.
Quote:

But the goal of any film technique is to be invisible, to keep the audience from pausing to analyze it.
And that's exactly why this sort of "Act of God" event can be such a tough sell; its very nature makes it hard to render invisible. Some people will be manipulated exactly as the artist intends and some will not. As far as I saw, Firefly kept the deus ex machina theatrics to a minimum, surrounded them with mountains of finely observed realism (I'm thinking of Mal's remarkable resilience and somewhat incredible effectiveness in Out of Gas rendered "invisible" by the brilliant flashbacks and the stark realism of the over-arching circumstances), while Serenity was full of 'em (Simon's James Bond act in the opening scenes, Mal's several five minute fights with a highly trained martial arts expert, Book dying the very moment before Simon reaches him, Wash's death at the moment of his "greatest triumph," River's climactic and utterly fantastical triumph over the reavers).

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, October 19, 2005 9:23 PM

JJCA


i agree with much of your post, however:

[Mal didn't kill the Operative? So the Operative kills all of Mals friends, kills Book, and leads to the death of Wash, and yet he walks away? If there ever was a use for a death, this would be it.]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


i think NOT killing the operative worked on 2 levels.
a) Most of the murder mal does is when he is pushed to it. At the point he actually finished with the operative, he was no longer pushed. He had the upper hand and was accomplishing his goal. If further violence had ensued, he probably would have killed with no worries.
b) more importantly, the guy had a whole quadrant's worth (or what was left after the battle) of soldiers there... killing their leader would have probably pissed them off extremely... Mal chose reason over violence - an ironic twist maybe for his character, but hey in joss' universe, everyone grows...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 12:55 AM

GROUNDED


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Stake, I really kinda hate these discussions. I'm not trying to convince anyone about the movie. I'm sharing my experiences with the hope that they resonate with others here. You and others coming here to tell me that I'm "wrong" and "defend" the movie is really just an annoyance. I very purposefully refrain from posting my negative feelings about the movie in threads specifically praising the BDM. I would just be a jerk if I did that, wouldn't I? Folks like you coming to this thread to "refute" my gorram feelings and perceptions is getting pretty old.



No one's trying to 'refute' your feelings. I suspect, like me, most people are just finding it difficult to understand how someone could have such a profoundly negative reaction to the movie. Consequently, it's only natural that they'd want to discuss what it is that caused this reaction and try to explain how they saw things differently. This is a discussion. It's what message boards are for.

Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Book dying the very moment before Simon reaches him,.....,River's climactic and utterly fantastical triumph over the reavers).



I definitely agree about these moments being unreal, if not the others.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 2:42 AM

SERGEANTX


Quote:

Originally posted by frunk:
I'm fairly certain no movie that had any reasonable chance of being made would have kept you happy. The medium is different, you can't tell the stories in a movie the same as with a tv series. A movie (particularly the first of hopefully many sequels) has to be self contained and explain itself. A tv show can let big question marks hang in an episode, knowing that they'll be back the following week (or year) to explain them. A tv show has the time to explore in depth each character in a 9 person cast.


I appreciate this argument, but it just doesn't ring true. My disappointments had nothing to do with the self-contained nature of the story. There are plenty of ways to tell a story without resorting to action-movie cliches. That was the primary compromise that ruined Serenity for me.
Quote:

If you think Serenity is just another action movie look again. It twists many of the conventions of an action movie just like Firefly twisted the conventions of tv. It has all the same emotional elements, love, humor, surprise, terror, anguish, action and others. The balance is different, but the quality isn't.

If Firefly is dead, long may its child live.



As you point out, it was mostly a question of balance. Joss tried to balance between the subtle family drama of Firefly and the no-holds-barred rollercoaster ride of an action movie. It was a decent enough attempt, but it failed to grab me. I'd rather Joss tug at my emotions than keep me on the edge of my seat. Just a matter of preference.

SergeantX

"Dream a little dream or you can live a little dream. I'd rather live it, cause dreamers always chase but never get it." Aesop Rock

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 3:17 AM

FRUNK


Quote:

Originally posted by SergeantX:
I appreciate this argument, but it just doesn't ring true. My disappointments had nothing to do with the self-contained nature of the story. There are plenty of ways to tell a story without resorting to action-movie cliches. That was the primary compromise that ruined Serenity for me.



I think Joss made it quite clear from early on that Serenity was going to be bigger, faster and louder than the series. That was his goal from the start. I don't think that warrants the disappointment you express. There's still more storytelling and character development in this than any single episode of Firefly, it just happens to be interspersed with more action. I'm sure if you get the dvd you can fast forward through the action sequences and you'll have a decent enough (not the best, not the worst) episode of Firefly. Still way better than most things on tv or in the movies.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:04 AM

CRUSADER


Quote:



Okay, I want to clear this up. A lot of people have been saying, "Alan Tuydk is not going to be back for the next two movies. He's going into a career in movies and will not have time to do anything having to do with Firefly." That's not true. Alan Tuydk has been in movies before ("I, Robot", "Dodgeball", "A Knight's Tale" and "28 Days") and he, like the other cast members, is signed on for all three movies.

Book's story will still be told. Joss promised that to Ron Glass when he started the movie.

keep flyin'
EngineAngel

Wash, you were the best gorram pilot in the verse. Rest In Peace (and then come back again!!!)


This is, of course, assuming the two sequels are conceived, produced and released. Considering the abyssmal box office numbers, I'm not confident. There is, however, a greater hope in a return to the small screen. I would prefer this, in fact. I'll take 22 episodes a year over two 120 minute movies any day. It means more Firefly!!! Of course, the DVD release and overseas figures could change this.

Theoretically, Wheedon and Tuydk might have seen the writing on the wall and gave Alan an out should the show revert to a televised version. Professional courtesy. Yes, Tuydk has done a number of feature films (and was wonderful in all of them) but most were produced after Firefly's cancellation. Alan T's budding career was not so much a reality then as it is now.

It is also possible that Wash's death was written into the series arc, and had the show continued, we would have experienced his death on the small screen. We all know that Wheedon had a much grander plan in mind when the show was killed by Fox.

Disclaimer: I hold absolutley NOTHING against Wheedon (or Alan T) for Wash's death. Creative or Business choice, he had a reason. And you can't dispute the effectiveness of the loss of a character like Wash. If this is part of the vision, so be it. There are still 7 other wonderful characters to love.

Also: the fact that Tuydk is signed on for two more films ONLY insures Tuydk's obligation to perform should the producers will it. Wheedon likely has every legal right to include or preclude any character's return. Also, it is a good way to lock in a financial deal, should any of the actors hit the big time and wish to demand more money (not that they would, it's just a precaution)

I guess I'm a pessimist. It would be wonderful to have Wash return. How emotionally fullfilling would that be? I'll keep my fingers crossed!

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:40 AM

MISGUIDED BY VOICES


Quote:

Originally posted by Crusader:
Also: the fact that Tuydk is signed on for two more films ONLY insures Tuydk's obligation to perform should the producers will it. Wheedon likely has every legal right to include or preclude any character's return. Also, it is a good way to lock in a financial deal, should any of the actors hit the big time and wish to demand more money (not that they would, it's just a precaution)



To take that one stage further, they may not have signed on before the script was locked down, and indeed it could have been the case that the studio could have decreed that, following test screenings, Joss would have to keep Wash alive, despite how he wanted the story to go. Cue hastily written and filmed scene of Wash's leg getting pinned, and him somehow being able to play dead so the Reavers don't get him while eveyone else goes off.



"I threw up on your bed"

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:52 AM

IMALEAF


I will agree to disagree and I disagree some much I don't know where to start so I am just leaving it at that.




~~River: Bible's broken. Contradictions, false logics. Doesn't make sense.~~

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 5:52 AM

DONCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by liminalosity:
Also! Thanks for the line Book burbles at the (his) end "Do whatever River says" dang, I have been trying hard to hear that one. Thanks.

Well, actually, that's not what he says, and (to me) isn't a very close paraphrase.

The lines actually go as follows:

Book: "...River..."

(Book grabs Mal's face)

Book: "I don't care what you believe. Just believe it. Whatever you..."

He never completes the line. As written in the shooting script, it's "Whatever you have to." Apparently Joss liked the ambiguity of the uncompleted line. I'd guess that it was shot as written too, but this is the reading Joss chose in the final edit.

I'm not sure how anybody can get "Do whatever River says" out of that. While River is certainly on his mind, to me Book is simply repeating his earlier call for Mal to find something to believe in.

It's all very existential, especially when you consider that the Operative is condemned for being a true believer, while Mal is being urged to find faith.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 6:02 AM

MALPAL


JUSL89,

Your comments are certainly not the first of this type here, but that doesn't make them any less unfounded. Actually, let me be more specific. Most of your problems with the movie are your own business. However, the repeated moaning about Book and Wash's death are preposterous. Yes, they are characters we loved, but they are just that - characters. As important as Browncoats are, we have absolutely no stake in the actual storytelling. You are going to tell Joss what he should do with the Firefly gang? The man that created them in the first place? It's so ridiculous. Secondly, some people on here assume they have vital information that they clearly don't have (in terms of contracts and signing on for sequels). Just because you read somewhere that all nine signed on for three sequels don't necessarily make it so. They didn't. Joss wouldn't state that as a reason for script choices because it would hang the actor out to dry with the fans (not that it should - this show may be some fans' lives, but at the end of the day, it's a job for the actors). So quit it with the Joss-bashing and the scripting-by-committee. I wouldn't even want to watch the series if the nine crew were guaranteed to live each week. Sounds like Friends-in-Space to me. And if the series had continued, do you honestly think only 2 members would be dead by now, given Joss style and track record?

So just relax and see Serenity for what it is - a nice bonus.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 6:24 AM

MITHEL


Without a doubt Firefly was a fantastic series. And certainly a large number of fans were disappointed with Serenity.

I'll mention an example of how this impacted my family. I convinced our daughter (age 18) to watch a couple episodes, she was immediately hooked and loved Firefly. We saw Serenity, she was horrified at the deaths of Book and Wash. Yesterday I suggested we go see Serenity again (I've already seen it three times myself) and my daughter's reply: "No, I couldn't I can't stand to see Wash die again."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 8:15 AM

IMALEAF


Quote:

Originally posted by MalPal:
So just relax and see Serenity for what it is - a nice bonus.





Very well said I have to agree





~~River: Bible's broken. Contradictions, false logics. Doesn't make sense.~~

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 9:20 AM

RODASH


Quote:

Originally posted by Mithel:
Yesterday I suggested we go see Serenity again (I've already seen it three times myself) and my daughter's reply: "No, I couldn't I can't stand to see Wash die again."



Unfortunately, Wash's death seems to have affected a lot of people this way (me and mine as well). Others, not so much.

Oh well, I guess that is why it is good to be in America where we are all entitled to our own opinions.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 10:56 AM

ENGINEANGEL


Quote:


written by Tracy:

Okay, for the nth. time - all 9 actors are signed for all three movies. Having said this:

Scene - outside of the Red Carpet Premiere Party at 'Versal Studios Hollywood.

Me: (whispering in ear) "I cried. Twice."
Alan Tudyk : (holding my hand from the greeting still) )"I'm so sorry!"
Me: "I felt staked through the chest."
AT: "Don't worry, everything will be fine. I promise you."

Later - Same place.

Me: "I kinda hate you for killing Wash."
Joss Whedon: "Well, you know... sorry."
Me: "But I do have some theories as to how you can bring him back."
JW: "Oh, you're not alone! I have like a million of them. I promise you, he'll be back. Everything's OK."

Trust Joss - he knows what he's doing. Yes, he's killed Wash. Yes, flashbacks would be the cheapest and easiest way to bring him back. I don't think that will be the case.

Wash and Book will be back.

In Joss I Trust.


Seriously, Tracy? Joss really said that? If you say yes, i will love you for life. Please be true!!!

keep flyin'
EngineAngel

Wash, you were the best gorram pilot in the verse. Rest In Peace (and then come back again!!!)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 11:32 AM

TRACY


Yes, he did say that to me - I was already fine after Alan had told me so, but Joss reassured me.

In Joss I Trust...

"Can I make a suggestion that doesn't involve violence? Or is this the wrong crowd for that?" (Wash)

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 11:40 AM

ENGINEANGEL


wooo hooo!!!! And as promised, .

keep flyin'
EngineAngel

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 1:27 PM

RODASH


Quote:

Originally posted by Tracy:
Yes, he did say that to me - I was already fine after Alan had told me so, but Joss reassured me.

In Joss I Trust...



I am not only going to kiss you but I just may go see the gorram movie again.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 7:02 PM

ZIRZIRD


I think you're missing a significant aspect of Jayne's character development. In the series, Jayne developed a friendship of sorts with Book. They lifted weights together, and often talked about spiritual matters (such as during The Message). In the BDM, when Jayne makes the so-called "out of character" decision to help Mal "misbehave," he cites Book's advice, that it's better to do something right if you can't do something good. Yes, this is unlike Jayne from the series. But it's a stroke of genius on the writer's part that we actually get some payoff from Jayne's tv relationship with Book. How cool is it that the payoff comes in the form of a moral decision--maybe the first important moral decision Jayne has ever made?!! Fantastic.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Thursday, October 20, 2005 7:05 PM

LIMINALOSITY


Quote:

Originally posted by DonCoat:
Quote:

Originally posted by liminalosity:
Also! Thanks for the line Book burbles at the (his) end "Do whatever River says" dang, I have been trying hard to hear that one. Thanks.

Well, actually, that's not what he says, and (to me) isn't a very close paraphrase.

The lines actually go as follows:

Book: "...River..."

(Book grabs Mal's face)

Book: "I don't care what you believe. Just believe it. Whatever you..."

He never completes the line. As written in the shooting script, it's "Whatever you have to." Apparently Joss liked the ambiguity of the uncompleted line. I'd guess that it was shot as written too, but this is the reading Joss chose in the final edit.

I'm not sure how anybody can get "Do whatever River says" out of that. While River is certainly on his mind, to me Book is simply repeating his earlier call for Mal to find something to believe in.

It's all very existential, especially when you consider that the Operative is condemned for being a true believer, while Mal is being urged to find faith.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.



Ooooh I have the Visual Companion now, and isn't it pretty!
I'm wondering if anyone else is having trouble finding it in stock? Is it selling really well? Hope so. I'm sorry if that means anyone here has to wait, but I'd love to see it sell right out. I poured through it a bit this evening, and read the script to the point where Mal tells the crew to saddle up or get off at Haven. I wanted to at least get a sense of how much the film tends to waver from the script, since I've never read a Joss script before, and to read the whole Book dies scene. I've read several posts quoting differences between script lines and spoken lines in the movie (and other things, ie: keens/keels), so I wanted to have it in front of me before responding. The wavering is interesting, hopefully there will be discussions on that later. Of course I have an excuse now to go see it again this week (having already brought in all the friends I can muster without actual preaching). I would have added the idea 'do what River says' to my attempts at lip reading Book's line. But it makes more sense to me too that he says something more along the lines of - choose and act for everyone's sake, as the script says "Whatever you have to". The whatever could sound like River with a mouth half full of fake blood (yuck). He does say River's name, but reading this, I think it's only farther back as the script indicates.

Um, existentialist, I think - only to a point. I don't think Book would tell just anyone 'I don't care what you believe, just believe it.' I think that message was specifically for Mal, because I think Book understands (like Inara and Zoe) that despite the PIA ways Mal has been acting since they met, in Mal's deepest heart, he is a great man. I don't think Book would be telling Jayne 'I don't care what you believe, just believe it', because, while I believe Book sees Jayne has potential (last few episodes of the show), Jayne still struggles with even understanding why a person would choose to put someone else first. At least till he slides the bottle to Simon. I don't think Book would have said that to many people. Anyway, just my thoughts, no one else's.

Veering wildly OT now (but still Book/Mal related) there's some other stuff in the VC version of the firelit scene on Haven, that looks to me suspiciously like Joss is hinting that Book and Mal have some abilities too. Page 99, and the first bit of 100. Book has some lines that sound an awful lot like someone who knows he's about to die. Then there's the bit I've been wondering about since the first time I saw the movie. The firelit scene suddenly cuts to River lying cuffed to the grate, with Mal crouched behind her. I've been thinking everytime 'is she seeing/hearing them, or is Mal connected to and seeing her?' Maybe I'm fishing, but I've always thought that scene placement was odd. If Joss was trying to indicate that River hears them, then why'd he put Mal in the scene behind her. Was it just to bump the line "I coulda left her there?" Fits right in with the bit where River yanks herself out of the nightmare where the class lies down, and she's cuffed to the grid, then we cut to Mal waking startled as Wash yells that
Think I'm seeing ponies and plastic rockets?...goad, goad.




Bright 'n shiny capt'n, not to worry.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 2:30 AM

DONCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by liminalosity:
The firelit scene suddenly cuts to River lying cuffed to the grate, with Mal crouched behind her. I've been thinking everytime 'is she seeing/hearing them, or is Mal connected to and seeing her?' Maybe I'm fishing, but I've always thought that scene placement was odd. If Joss was trying to indicate that River hears them, then why'd he put Mal in the scene behind her. Was it just to bump the line "I coulda left her there?" Fits right in with the bit where River yanks herself out of the nightmare where the class lies down, and she's cuffed to the grid, then we cut to Mal waking startled as Wash yells that
Think I'm seeing ponies and plastic rockets?...goad, goad.

I got something different out of that dream sequence, though not on first viewing. I think it harkens back to River's comment in the cargo hold: "He didn't lie down. They never lie down." Yet in the dream, she's being told to lie down by an authority figure (representing the Alliance) and is resisting.

I see it as a playing-out of her schizophrenia. River knows about Miranda, but she's desperately trying to suppress that knowledge -- but her "neural stripping" makes that almost impossible. (She can't not feel.) So whenever she's placed in a situation that forces that knowledge to the surface, she deflects it, never stating the underlying truth -- the Reavers don't lie down (unlike the rest of the Mirandans). Little River won't lie down (though the Alliance is trying to force her to). It's going to get much much worse (when we all find out that awful knowledge).

One thing that's quite clear after repeated viewings: even River's craziest remarks aren't crazy at all. The brilliant part is: that's true even of the things she says in the Firefly episodes. Everything makes perfect sense once you have the key.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the events in Serenity were all clear in Joss' mind from the beginning. The story would have played out more slowly if the series had continued, but it would have come to the same place.

Anyway, back to your thoughts -- I didn't see it quite as you did, but it's entirely possible for Joss to write scenes that work on multiple levels at once. The "tore up plenty" exchange is a prominent example.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 3:35 AM

KIZZIECSTARS


some people liked the phantom menace. some people hated serenity. you get weirdos in every fandom. its a sad fact of life.
think about it here - serenity was a first up, nothing mainstream behind it to pull people in. hardly anybody had seen firefly. so some concessions needed to be made. hell, they even gave us some bits just for us (the three switches, i finally saw the thing on the third and fourth viewings). joss couldn't make a movie that only we'd go see. inferior numbers... terrible thing that.
there hasn't been anything like serenity in ages. it had no big stars, no big franchise like the other genre films (may i once again snipe at the first two star wars prequels, i do that alot). why should it be like firefly anyway?

Extra note - the river fight scenes, come on ppl, dont you see? summer glau in a dress, beating ppl up, it pulls in the teenage boy audience! i know - i went to see it with three of them.

peace out
Kizzie
XxX

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 4:23 AM

CHRISISALL


Quote:

Originally posted by Grounded:


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Book dying the very moment before Simon reaches him,.....,River's climactic and utterly fantastical triumph over the reavers).



I definitely agree about these moments being unreal, if not the others.

Y'know, for me, in the FF pilot, when they got away from the alliance so easily with the crybaby and a moonin', well then, what's all this problem with the 'fantastical' or 'unreal', anyway?
"We live on a spaceship, dear."

It's ALL good!

Chrisisall BDM fanforever

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 4:48 AM

MITHEL


Well I don't have faith in Joss regarding bringing Book & Wash back. I just can't see how this can work. Options I see:
1) Prequel - sigh... ok... better than nothing. This could be placed before the series, this would be a disaster (we wouldn't have Simon, River or Book!). This could be in the eight months between the series and the movie. Ok... but still bad cause we already know Book and Wash die and we're still mourning their loss. The one big advantage this has is that it solves the problem of having uber River psychic and martial arts master always ready to save any situation. The big flaw is that it's like reading the ending of a book and *then* reading the book all out of order. Bad... very bad. We loved Firefly, all we wanted was more Firefly (not the BDM as Serenity was made).

2) Resurrection - oh my gawd no Joss, this is NOT Buffy!

3) Flashbacks - argh... please no, this is still a really bad choice.

4) Ignore Serenity and pretend it never happened and just continue on with Firefly (an idea I had but nicely suggested in the next post, thanks Dan).

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 4:57 AM

DANTHEMAN


I like option 4.

Ignore Serenity completely and continue on from the last Firefly episode. Just forget that Serenity was ever out on the Big Screen. It never happened. That's the only way the show can go on.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 5:19 AM

MITHEL


Thanks Dan, I'd forgotten about that option (I've edited my post). Yes, seriously I'm tempted to say the best option is to pretend the movie never happened and just continue with Firefly from the end of the series.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 6:20 AM

CORNCOBB


Sorry, JUSL89. I can't really agree with any of your comments about Serenity. I loved it.
1 & 3 The deaths of Wash and Book: OK, upseting, but a part of good storytelling. As soon as i heard there was going to be a movie follow-up to Firefly, i knew that at least one character would die. Joss has always been very willing to kill characters for the sake of the story, unlike most other TV writers. As a writer myself I can understand the need to have characters die sometimes. i enjoy Joss' work more for this, not less. He has faith in his audiences ability to accept change. His shows don't become stale because things constantly change. And there is always a real sense of peril, because no character is safe. Most TV bores me because there is no sense of peril: all characters are sure to survive every perilous situation they encounter.
2: The interaction between Mal and Simon struck me as odd at first. But on second viewing i could see that this was simply showing the tremendous amount of stress they were both under. It also provided Mal with a character arc for the film. He starts out broken, bitter and hollow (traits we saw signs of in Firefly, accentuated here) and is healed by finding something to believe in and fight for. He regains some of what he lost in Serenity Valley. This is another Whedon trademark: characters change. Their relationships change and sometimes fall apart. I think that if FF had continued, Mal and simon would have eventually come into conflict in this way anyway.
4: I agree that there was too much action but I don't think it detracted (or distracted) from the story and characters
5:Mal didn't let the Operative live out of mercy. He let him live so he could see the tape, and see how wrong he was. That was punishment, a far worse (and more meaningful) one that death.
6: Jayne has changed. Simple as that. He's still mostly out for himself but remember how he became more integrated and altruistic as Firefly went on? And remember how he feels about Reavers. He's a bad guy but he's not that bad. The Miranda incident would have horrified him.
7: The Alliance's main power seems to be that people believe in them. Even those that don't like the Alliance don't seem to hate them enough to act against them. Evidence of a planetary genocide is likely to change that.
8: Disagree with that the most, sorry. Fighting for causes often involves great personal sacrifice. Doesn't mean it aint worth doing. Like I said, Mal found something to believe i8n and fight for. I think the message is 'fight the good fight, regardless of cost'. Although, I wish we could have seen some concrete consequences: a mass defection of purple-bellies, some protests/ riots etc...
9: I din't find myself wishing for more Inara. Not a very inspired or sympathetic character IMHO. I did want to see more Book though. Oh, and bow and arrow. We know she's trained in fencing, why not archery?
All in all a superb film. Not perfect, but it's merits far outwayed its flaws.

"Gorramit Mal... I've forgotten my line."

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 9:24 AM

LIMINALOSITY


Quote:

Originally posted by DonCoat:
Quote:

Was it just to bump the line "I coulda left her there?" Fits right in with the bit where River yanks herself out of the nightmare where the class lies down, and she's cuffed to the grid, then we cut to Mal waking startled as Wash yells that
Think I'm seeing ponies and plastic rockets?...goad, goad.

I got something different out of that dream sequence, though not on first viewing. I think it harkens back to River's comment in the cargo hold: "He didn't lie down. They never lie down." Yet in the dream, she's being told to lie down by an authority figure (representing the Alliance) and is resisting.

I see it as a playing-out of her schizophrenia. River knows about Miranda, but she's desperately trying to suppress that knowledge -- but her "neural stripping" makes that almost impossible. (She can't not feel.) So whenever she's placed in a situation that forces that knowledge to the surface, she deflects it, never stating the underlying truth -- the Reavers don't lie down (unlike the rest of the Mirandans). Little River won't lie down (though the Alliance is trying to force her to). It's going to get much much worse (when we all find out that awful knowledge).

One thing that's quite clear after repeated viewings: even River's craziest remarks aren't crazy at all. The brilliant part is: that's true even of the things she says in the Firefly episodes. Everything makes perfect sense once you have the key.

The only conclusion I can draw is that the events in Serenity were all clear in Joss' mind from the beginning. The story would have played out more slowly if the series had continued, but it would have come to the same place.

Anyway, back to your thoughts -- I didn't see it quite as you did, but it's entirely possible for Joss to write scenes that work on multiple levels at once. The "tore up plenty" exchange is a prominent example.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.


Full thoughts and full deep breaths: always helpful, huh? The pixies took the last half of that line...when Wash yells to Mal on the com that he's going to bounce down a wave.

I completely agree with what you write about the meaning of her schizophrenia in the dream sequence, and about River not lying down when told to by the teacher, and I really like the way you put it. I meant that in addition to that, as she jerks awake the second time, Mal is also yanked awake in his bunk, and I wondered if, by that cut Joss was trying to indicate that they are connected - not just her being able to read his mind, but Mal being in River's head also.

I found River waking twice from that dream very spooky creepy. The first time she wakes, there's a snarling voice that says something like 'kill them all', and then she wakes again. This moment made me wonder if part of what's going on with the 'neural stripping' is that the nightmare is trying to drag her into itself - trying to make River into a reaver. As in "Bushwacked", the fellow the reavers made watch while they killed the rest of the passengers was turning himself into a reaver. The Stockholm Syndrome (identifying with your captors) taken to the logical, horrifying conclusion.

Also, speaking of the dream sequences (to spiral off on a tangent as usual) I think the classroom scene at the beginning of the movie with the kids talking about reavers, and little River's explanation that 'we meddle' is from a real memory. A point of fusion between her real life and the horror.

Also, I've thought better of the idea that Mal is being psychic, seeing River cuffed to the grate. I realized I'm seeing pixies here, and that's just a plain old device. In the dialogue between Mal and Book in the firelit scene on Haven, Mal's saying he could have left her, and the scene showing us by the agony on his face looking at her chained to the decking, that he never could have left her. Sorry, just temporary insanity. Sometimes things only come clearer for me after I write or speak. Too bad about that! Clarity before speaking, please (but also willingness to improve).

Yes, I too think Joss has a really long view of the stories he tells. Where'd I read that Joss said the movie plot was season 2, mashed into a much smaller box? I think some things that will happen in season 12 of Firefly will be things that were part of his original imagining of a character. Not that I think his stories are rigidly imagined, I think he gets all bendy with them, but I think he begins with a pretty well realized structure of where it's probably going.

I agree that everything River says makes sense once you have the context. There's a line of River's in the script (cut from the film) "There's no pattern to the pebbles here, they're completely random. I tried to count them but you drove too fast. Hummingbird." So sweet, and so childlike, which I forget about River; she's just a traumatized kid under the weight of all that intelligence and craziness. And visually, the line fits right into the moment when the Mule pulls up at the heist and River's looking out of the Mule straight down at the ground going past.

They weren't cows inside. They were waiting to be, but they forgot. Now they see sky and they remember what they are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 10:07 AM

STEVE580


Quote:

Originally posted by dantheman:
Ignore Serenity completely and continue on from the last Firefly episode.


Don't people get that, eh, that's what Serenity *was*? If Firefly had continued, it would have looked a lot like the movie - people would have died, things would have changed. Why can't people accept that? Serenity was the continuation of the show, in movie-form.

Oh, and it wasn't 8 monthes between the show and the movie - it was closer to 2.
-Steve

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 1:05 PM

CITIZEN


Steve580:
I believe it's been stated by 'official' sources (if not in the movie itself somehow) that the time frame from the end of OiS to Serenity is ~18 months...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 1:57 PM

DONCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Steve580:
I believe it's been stated by 'official' sources (if not in the movie itself somehow) that the time frame from the end of OiS to Serenity is ~18 months...

I originally thought it was about 8 months, but there's a problem. In the movie itself, in the scene in the dining room just after River's freakout in the Maidenhead, Mal yells at Simon that he's had River on his boat for eight months. That would be eight months from Serenity (the pilot) to Serenity (the movie).

Either Mal's confused, or the time scale is a whole lot tighter than I originally thought.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 2:07 PM

CITIZEN


Ah, that's what I was thinking of, and I thought what he said was eighteen months...

means the time scales shorter than what I said, but still longer than 2 months...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 2:20 PM

DONCOAT


Quote:

Originally posted by liminalosity:
Yes, I too think Joss has a really long view of the stories he tells. Where'd I read that Joss said the movie plot was season 2, mashed into a much smaller box? I think some things that will happen in season 12 of Firefly will be things that were part of his original imagining of a character. Not that I think his stories are rigidly imagined, I think he gets all bendy with them, but I think he begins with a pretty well realized structure of where it's probably going.


Yes. Of course, other writers work on his series too. I'd like to be a fly on the wall for the discussions -- "No, you can't have River doing that, because..."Or maybe, "You can't have River doing that, but I can't tell you why. Or I'd have to kill you."

Quote:

I agree that everything River says makes sense once you have the context.
I'm thinking of a scene (I think it's from Ariel) where she starts babbling about it being Christmas but they've taken the toys away, and left nothing but coal. It makes some sense for that scene alone, but takes on another whole layer now that we know the underlying cause of her madness. Maybe the stress of that moment has lowered her defenses and some images of Miranda are leaking through. Coal indeed!


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 2:49 PM

STEVE580


Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Ah, that's what I was thinking of, and I thought what he said was eighteen months...

means the time scales shorter than what I said, but still longer than 2 months...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't



Wasn't the show over a span of six months? That was my understanding...I know it was near a month between Shindig and Safe alone...

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 3:06 PM

PIZMOBEACH

... fully loaded, safety off...


The part I will never understand isn't the deaths of Book and Wash so much as their timing - in the first movie??!! It's the triumphant return from being gone and buried for 3 years and you're gonna start killing characters?? I was hoping for a movie that had a focus on what made these nine actors and characters so great together (as the best of Firefly did), and that that would hook the part of the audience that hadn't seen Firefly on wanting more. I think that's what all posters here wanted, from the gripers to the ever-faithful - more Firefly.
Serenity was not that, it was more "this is the big finale." And that possibility truly sucks.

Scifi movie music + Firefly dialogue clips, 24 hours a day - http://www.scifiradio.net

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 4:30 PM

HKCAVALIER


(WARNING: still very bitter about the whole gorram thing)

Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
The part I will never understand isn't the deaths of Book and Wash so much as their timing - in the first movie??!! It's the triumphant return from being gone and buried for 3 years and you're gonna start killing characters?? I was hoping for a movie that had a focus on what made these nine actors and characters so great together (as the best of Firefly did), and that that would hook the part of the audience that hadn't seen Firefly on wanting more. I think that's what all posters here wanted, from the gripers to the ever-faithful - more Firefly.
Serenity was not that, it was more "this is the big finale." And that possibility truly sucks.

Good points all. It seems pretty simple, do'n'it? I already lived through all the characters dying when the show was cancelled, what's the point of killing off close to 1/4 of the cast in the first installment of a hoped for trilogy? It's just a crazy stunt! Makes me think Joss just went off his meds or something. Firefly was certainly one of the most suspenseful t.v. series the world has ever known, without a single one of the BDH's dying (well, 'cept Mal). I have no doubt that Joss might have killed either or both of these characters in the course of two or three seasons, but killing both of them the moment we get them back from the void of cancellation? I had no idea browncoats would be so masochistic, but, boy howdie, Joss sure did! Score, one for Joss; zero, for HK on that one.

Here's a thing: when the show was cancelled every incomplete plot thread and untold backstory was lost. Barring a miracle, none of it would ever be resolved. Didn't that suck? But the miracle came (in no small part, due to the work of us fans). Now, in the space of just one film, Joss has changed the landscape so much that we are in exactly the same spot all over again, because we may never get another installment. The only way I will be able to make sense of the shenanigans of Serenity is if I get a sequel--IF Joss desides to make sense of it at all. Heck, all he has to do is advance the story another 6 months and he won't have to deal with Zoe's grief; or maybe by then she'll be remarried to Simon, Kaylee will have moved back in with her dad and Inara will be pregnant and fans will eat it all up, quote Joss as saying that he intended all that to happen during seasons 4 thru 8 and call it brilliant, mind-blowing, best movie ever--as the openning credits scroll by, we can make bets on who'll get knocked off in this one!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 5:05 PM

MOHRSTOUTBEARD


Quote:

Originally posted by pizmobeach:
The part I will never understand isn't the deaths of Book and Wash so much as their timing - in the first movie??!! It's the triumphant return from being gone and buried for 3 years and you're gonna start killing characters??



I think you have to look at it from Joss' perspective: he's already had these characters and their story taken away from him once before. Do you really think he wants to rely on the hope that there may be sequels in order to get his story told? Or do you think he'd seize the chance and put the most important parts of the story that he wanted to tell in one film, just in case?

And, let's face it, "the story he wanted to tell" is the most important part here. Everyone has the right to dislike (or even hate) the film that Whedon and crew have given us, but in the end it is Joss' story, and he has to do what he feels is right. He's not our performing monkey. We can't tell him what he should or shouldn't do.

To quote the man himself, from the Visual Companion:
"You know, my original intent was that you never leave a man behind. Or woman. Dramatically, the more I worked on the screenplay, the more it became clear that in order to make people feel that this was real, a certain shocking thing is going to have to happen. [...] When you have an ensemble, you think about what people are going to take away with them at the end of the movie, and you don't think about the second movie until you've made the first one. [...] And you have to up the stakes, you have to make it real, you have to make it matter, and you cannot let your hope for a sequel guide what you're going to do in a movie, because it will lessen the chance that there will be one."

Also:
Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
. . .quote Joss as saying that he intended all that to happen during seasons 4 thru 8 and call it brilliant, mind-blowing, best movie ever. . .



. . .snarky much? Don't forget the wise teachings of Buckaroo Banzai that are emblazoned at the end of your posts. . .

------------------
"Remember, there's a big difference between kneeling down and bending over."

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 5:10 PM

TUNABELLY


Quote:

Originally posted by HKCavalier:
In another thread, I mentioned Batman Begins as a highly successful, cerebral, character driven action movie that made big, big bucks. To say that Joss had to make a popcorn movie just ain't so.



i don't think it's fair to compare Serenity to Batman Begins at all. Batman is a brand name - it's recognized and it's been around for a long time. it's audience is huge - just the excitment it generated before it's release is a testament to this. Firefly was a project that had it's feet loped off before it even got to crawl. i didn't see mcdonalds clammering to put Mal or Wash on their products.

i did leave the theater feeling a little disappointed. i think the first thing i said was "there wasn't much Joss Whedon in that". sure, it had his trademark kill a main character thing but the feel was certainly different. i had hoped for something a bit more like the series but i can't claim to understand how that crazy industry works. i have the utmost faith in Joss Whedon as an artist - he has yet to totally disappoint me. he is my god and the supreme ruler of all things awesome. so - i'm gonna assume he did what he did for a reason. if he had to change the flavour to get the movie out there (or if universal made demands after the project had already started)then so be it - it wouldn't have been the first time.

think back to the original Buffy the Vampire Slayer movie. (ya know - that travesty with Luke Perry) it was a shame and no one took it seriously but see what a deeply moving and all around awesome show the series became?

point is - big wigs and guys with the cash $ have always been a pain in the ass for artists everywhere.



i mean to say
-Simon

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 5:17 PM

TUNABELLY


Quote:

Originally posted by Steve580:
Oh, and it wasn't 8 monthes between the show and the movie - it was closer to 2.
-Steve



actually i read somewhere that the movie takes place 6 months after Objects in Space.

outta curiosity - has anyone read the comics? they are supposed to bridge the gap between series and movie.

i mean to say
-Simon

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 5:41 PM

STAKETHELURK


HK, I know you’re a bit sick of people responding to your posts on this topic, but I’ve got a few things to say about this one (and Pizmobeach’s). Might prove interesting to you.

If you go back through Whedon interviews before the film, when asked about sequels he always talks about wanting to get the first movie right because if it fails there won’t be any sequels. This was also Whedon’s approach to television. The first season of “Buffy,” Whedon felt they might not survive beyond a single season, so he focused all his efforts on telling a contained story within that first season so that if the show ended the story would be finished (as he’s mentioned a few times, he hates stories that are left unfinished). But while the first season was a self-contained story, Whedon also left a few threads dangling so if they beat the odds and came back next year, he’d have more story to tell.

Obviously, they did beat the odds, but they were still a bit shaky and Whedon decided that this system was a good idea. So from then on he always tried to write every season as if it were the last, while leaving a few threads unfinished for future stories if they got picked up for another year. Thus, every season could both stand alone and serve as a part of a grander cohesive whole. He used this again over on “Angel,” where it unfortunately proved useful when “Angel” was abruptly cancelled in its fifth year--the awesome (IMHO) series finale was virtually unchanged from the planned season finale. I’ve no doubt Whedon was going to use this same tactic on “Firefly,” especially given FOX’s bunglings. Had “Firefly” played out for a full season, it would’ve told a complete story, while laying the groundwork for a possible second season. The first season of “Firefly” was written as if it were the last, but FOX didn’t even let it get to the season finale which would have tied things together.

What I’m getting at here is that Whedon never assumes success, so I’ve no doubt he wrote the Big Damn Movie as if it were the Last Damn Movie. It’s not pulling punches for a trilogy since there’s a fair chance we won’t get one. At the same time, Whedon left threads for future movies--we don’t know the full effect Mal’s transmission will have on the Alliance, we don’t know Inara’s secret, we don’t know whether Mal and Inara will get together, whether Kaylee and Simon will stay together, and I’ve heard that Whedon also wants to (somehow) unravel Book’s past. But at the same time, two of the central arcs of the series--River’s storyline and Mal’s regaining some kind of belief--were answered and the film can stand alone.

So, Whedon wrote the film knowing full well that he might not be able to write more. That’s one reason why Book and Wash died in this one instead of a sequel--because there might not be sequels. Rather than holding out for a future that might not happen, Whedon tried to tell as much as could in this first installment. Some things were left out deliberately, others due to time constraints, and Whedon no doubt wants to write about them, too. But he also feels that his stories need to be able to stand on their own as well as fit into a greater whole. Going into this, Joss didn’t want to disappoint the fans and one thing that would’ve disappointed everyone is if he wrote “Serenity, Part I” and it failed, leaving the fans hanging in the middle of the story.

He’s obviously disappointed you, HK, and I’m sorry that’s happened. All I’m saying here is that Joss knew going in that there might well be no more installments and that shaped his writing. He had to focus on just a few core storylines to tell a complete story in one film, and much was left out that he’s no doubt itching to explore. We may never know everything, but having seen Joss’s other work, I doubt he ever wanted to tell us everything. A few mysteries, a few unanswered questions make it all the more interesting IMHO--just look at all the fun we’ve had speculating over the past few years!

EDITED TO ADD: Great, I sit down to write this long thing and I find that someone else has already said basically the same thing! Well, I hope my post was helpful nonetheless.

Oh, and the timeline thing? Joss is notoriously bad at math. Over on “Buffy,” it took him four seasons to get the vampires’ ages right! I wouldn’t worry too much about it; it’s just one of those things you overlook or explain away.

NOTIFY: N   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Friday, October 21, 2005 9:14 PM

LIMINALOSITY


Quote:

Originally posted by DonCoat:
Yes. Of course, other writers work on his series too. I'd like to be a fly on the wall for the discussions -- "No, you can't have River doing that, because..."Or maybe, "You can't have River doing that, but I can't tell you why. Or I'd have to kill you."

I'm thinking of a scene (I think it's from Ariel) where she starts babbling about it being Christmas but they've taken the toys away, and left nothing but coal. It makes some sense for that scene alone, but takes on another whole layer now that we know the underlying cause of her madness. Maybe the stress of that moment has lowered her defenses and some images of Miranda are leaking through. Coal indeed!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.



I'd like to be a fly on the wall for Shakespeare readings as well.

I went to find the bit below about the engine part to be sure I was remembering it just right, so I thought I'd take a sec to find the quote you're referencing, and it's even creeeepier.

"They took Christmas away. Came down the stairs for the shiny presents. They took the tree and the stockings. Nothing left but coal. Don't look in the closet either, it's greedy. It's not in the spirit of the holiday."

Holy Oak Massachusetts Rocky, that will give me nightmares.

Yeah, I'm going to go back and rewatch FF soon. Joss is always talking back and forth across the timeline. I watched an Angel season 2 episode tonight with friends ('Darla' was the title if I remember right), and there are tons of Angelis/Darla/Spike & Dru flashback scenes in it that were in various Buffy eps, told from different perspectives from how I'd originaly seen them. I do wish I had been there to see all 3 shows broadcast. There are things I'll always miss cause I didn't see how the shows played off one another [insert chamber music reference]. Anyway, I'll bet there's a lot of that in FF that I'm just not remembering. Then we'll all have more ideas to post about too!

Ok, example from Ariel about reflections across the timeline. One of my favorite bits from the show, too. When Wash and Kaylee are looking in the junkyard for the ambulance and Wash finds the part they needed in Out of Gas lying on the ground. He hefts it, wings it...and it hits an ambulance. In the movie's 'How's a guy get so wrong' scene when Jayne is dropping the parts from the reaver ship, Kaylee picks up that same part, and starts breaking it down. Love it, love it.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 1:07 AM

CITIZEN


Quote:

Originally posted by Steve580:
Quote:

Originally posted by citizen:
Ah, that's what I was thinking of, and I thought what he said was eighteen months...

means the time scales shorter than what I said, but still longer than 2 months...



Wasn't the show over a span of six months? That was my understanding...I know it was near a month between Shindig and Safe alone...


Yep, that's my understanding...
18 - 6 = 12 so I'd say it's about a year between film and series...

At least my recollection is that Mal said 18 months. I could be wrong...

Quote:

Originally posted by TunaBelly:
actually i read somewhere that the movie takes place 6 months after Objects in Space.


I'd heard something not too dissimilar.
Quote:

outta curiosity - has anyone read the comics? they are supposed to bridge the gap between series and movie.

Yes. It involves the Blue Hands and how the Operative got on the case...



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you Beeeer Milkshakes!
Even though I might, even though I try,
I can't

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Saturday, October 22, 2005 5:32 AM

LIMINALOSITY


Quote:

Originally posted by DonCoat:
I'd like to be a fly on the wall for the discussions -- "No, you can't have River doing that, because..."Or maybe, "You can't have River doing that, but I can't tell you why. Or I'd have to kill you."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ain't about you, Jayne. It's about what they need.



Verbification of a Noun!
Book thing, Novelization.
Feeling pretty stupid now, I mean I -assume- it is sanctioned by the powers of Joss. He does know it's out there, and the author did speak with him, yes? I suppose it would drive him to more than lettuce in the basement if he thought someone ruint his story, so yes he must have had some hand in it.
Here I've been, going off on the 800 tangents of speculation vector.
Soupguy mentioned it a couple of weeks ago, and I didn't find it right away. Last night I cracked it open, and by page 55 I can see that there will be much exposition for the hardcore, and the putting to bed of speculation about many things.
I can't not read it, but rats. It's more fun figuring out my own interp. On the other hand, boring the natives here. Not a good idea.


Flouncing off to read and ruminate, but not to hook up at the mall.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:58 AM

FOREVERSHINY


There are so many things I would like to argue! But doing so would take up a HUGE amount of time, space, and words, none of which will proabably convince you. I know that if I am really into something--be it a side of an argument, a show , or the like-- and think one thing with a strong passion, nothing will sway me from my ideas, my thoughts, my side.

I will say one thing though, that I don't really want to. I think that it's a sci-fi action movie is because, action sells. Yes, Joss does things for himself, and told the story because he needed to get it down, but let's face it, contemplation movies don't sell. I would love to believe that he did it JUST for the whole "I love this show and need it to go on," which is part of why he did it I think, he also knew that if he were to make Serenity like Firefly, in the contemplation way, in wouldn't sell in the mainstream.

And as for Wash's death...don't even get me started! I loved him, and as much as I do, his death WAS for a reason, it DID have a purpose and should not be so played down.

Just my thoughts.
Cheers,

~ForeverShiny~
~~~~~~~~~~~
Can't stop the signal!
"No, Cap'n, I think it's shiny!"--Kaylee, o'course.
"Yeah, but she's our witch, so cut her the hell down." --Mal in "Safe."
"Love. You can learn all the math in the 'verse, but you take a boat in the air you don't love, she'll shake you off as sure as the turning of worlds. Love keeps her in the air when she oughtta fall down, tells ya she's hurtin' 'fore she keens. Makes her a home." --Mal in "Serenity" My all-time fav quote. Love it!


NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 12:53 PM

FLIPDOG


I apologize if this has been said, I scanned the thread, but didn't read 100%.

I loved Serenity, and thought it held pretty true. Yes, I still can't seem to get over Wash's death, because I connected with him so much, but it had so many other meanings. He was part of the main comic relief and more importantly, he brought out Zoe's feminity. Yes, I'll miss "mmm...wife soup..." but this is a real chance for her character to take some turns. Its especially depressing because they had talked about children and family and all that stuff. Also from the writing aspect (and in terms of realism), I thought his death was perfect. No "10-minute-long-Neo-Trinity-death-scene-of-doom" ...he's impaled, he's dead.

But the most important part of him dying, was that it did something most films can't get across. When he died, it opened the door for the possibility of anyone and/or everyone dying. After that, Mal could've died, Jayne, Kaylee, etc. From a screenwriting standpoint, I feel it did it's job extra-well. Personally I would've killed off the doctor so that Mal could explore the "fatherly" figure that slightly peeks at the end of the film, but then you run into problems with the Kaylee factor and, its just too much.

As for Shepherd Book, I think *that* (his death) was especially needed because it shows the other side of Mal's character. The one that he covers up with the one that drives people who care about him away. I mean those lines whe he dies, its gut-wrenching, heartfelt and yet still subtily comedic.

Those are just my thoughts, yeah it sucked to lose someone and then a second, but I don't think we've seen the last of his character.

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

Wednesday, December 14, 2005 1:02 PM

VIOLETRIX


Quote:

Just a note about Jayne. I think Jayne made a decision to follow Mal after Ariel. That convinced him Mal was worthy of his loyalty. And by asking him not to tell the others he gave away his feeling of family for them all. Jayne was as roped in as the rest of them to the destiny they all shared on this mission.


yeah, that. what they said.
no really, i totally agree with this. jayne changes after ariel, not a lot, but a little. none of the other characters are static in their development, and neither is jayne.

http://violetrix.blogspot.com
the arithmetic of absence

NOTIFY: Y   |  REPLY  |  REPLY WITH QUOTE  |  TOP  |  HOME  

YOUR OPTIONS

NEW POSTS TODAY

USERPOST DATE

FFF.NET SOCIAL